Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-25 Denise LaFever Chris Johnson From:Denise LaFever <dlafever3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 25, 2019 6:48 PM To:mayortammy; Anne Little Roberts; Joe Borton; Ty Palmer; Treg Bernt; Genesis Milam; Luke Cavener Cc:Chris Johnson Subject:New Comprehensive Plan H-2019-0101 CPAM, CPAT Attachments:Review Notes.pdf External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Dear Mayor and Council Members, As you are aware, I have attended many public meetings over the past three years. I have observed Planning & Zoning meetings for months on end, as Treg has observed. I have attended numerous City Council meetings, during which I have observed, proposed Future Meeting Topics, and testified for or against many applications. I have had the opportunity to speak in depth with the Development staff and gain a tremendous amount of knowledge and insight. Cameron, Caleb, Brian, Bill and Joshua have been very nice and helpful. I was ecstatic and honored to be selected to represent the residents of Meridian on the Steering Committee. I took this job very seriously and attended all the meetings, attended numerous public outreach meetings that promoted participation in the New Comprehensive Plan, and listened to the public’s concerns: Infrastructure, Schools, Open Space/Parks and the Closeness of the houses/crowding topped the list. I attended all the initial neighborhood outreach meetings for the Fields, Magic Bridge, Southern Rim/ Southwest areas. I wanted to understand what the existing landowners’ concerns were. At my own expense I attended an Urban Land Institute meeting recommended by Cameron. The topic of the meeting was placemaking - the importance of open/gathering space, identity, and uniqueness to build a sustainable and viable place. My big take away was stated by Urban Land Institute’s Ed McMahon, “Every community in America needs a long-rang green space plan or conservation plan … just like you need a transportation plan.” I attended one of the summer outreach events to see what the public was being shown and told. I took my assignment extremely seriously and provided comments as requested. I spoke up and participated in all the meetings. I served on the Economic Development Subcommittee and was Susan Karnes’ backup for the Housing Subcommittee. I spoke to Bruce, the consultant, and even asked him to provide a drawing of what the “Fields” could look like with a specific area plan. The changes that have been included in the Staff plan have deviated from what was shown and discussed at the Steering Committee, so I’m attaching my review notes with my thoughts, recommendations and concerns as a Steering Committee. What I’m about to request of you was first brought up at the Steering Committee. For months, I have been deeply conflicted and deeply concerned over the development, processes and timing for adoption of this New Comprehensive Plan. Sally Reynolds resigned from the Steering Committee over similar concerns. 1 For me to support this plan, and have my name attached as a steering committee member, I must know that it meets my personal moral compass standards--and for me, that means I have to be able to answer these questions and feel good about the answers: Who are the Stakeholders? Is this plan truly stakeholder-driven? Is this the right thing to do? Is the timing right? Is it being done for the right motivations? Is it FAIR to all concerned? Will this build a better community and be sustainable for the future? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? A couple of things have happened during the eighteen months of the Plan that give me great concerns: 1. The Steering Committee made the recommendation to the Staff to speak to the neighbors located next to the development on Eagle and Overland (Rolling Hill Subdivision, Jewel Subdivision & RUT). Caleb went before City Council and the Mayor at a workshop meeting in which the public is unable to testify, and proceeded to request that the City Council change the request made by the Steering Committee to not speak with the neighbors. At a City Council meeting soon after, the developer of Eagle Crossing requested a change that required City Council approval and one of the neighbors from the above-mentioned neighborhoods testified on record that Brighton was making offers to his neighbors to purchase their properties. Looking at the events in retrospect, the optics are troubling: It creates the perception that Staff worked with the Developer, knowingly or not, to circumvent conversations with the neighbors that could have potentially impacted the future value of their properties. This was brought up at a Steering Committee meeting, and it was recommended that Mixed Use be assigned to these properties and a specific area plan be made so the access wasn’t an issue and would assist in developing a cohesive area. I’m deeply concerned by what happened and the practice of using LDR as a placeholder that potentially suppresses future property values. 2. At one of the last steering committee meetings a request was brought forward by Staff to have a future land use changed to Industrial. When asked for the reason, the answer was that the landowner wanted to develop the property sooner than later. 3. The developer of the property located north of I-84 and west of Meridian Road come before City Council requesting a comprehensive map change. The developer wanted to build houses and apartments. The neighbors came out to testify and were concerned about the impact of the change especially when it came to the road. This property is currently zoned with concept plan that shows a hotel. The New Comprehensive Plan shows this as MDR. Changing from Commercial to all residential instead of Mixed Use, is this the right answer? This property has high visibility to I-84 and Meridian Road. It has stated before that due to the noise residential along I-84 is not to most desirable. 4. The Hash Design representative at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting was yet another example of a inconsistent process, in which the Staff informed a developer to put in his land use request, so it could be 2 included in the Plan—but neighborhoods were forced to organize in a last minute effort to be heard, and of course the request was never considered by our steering committee. 5. I am concerned this “Comprehensive” Plan is a “Partial Plan,” because we neglected a critical piece of Meridian’s future: a vibrant downtown. Requests by the Steering Committee to revisit the Downtown plan were denied. The downtown is vital to Meridian’s identity, but this wasn’t part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. I do not have confidence, therefore, that this Plan is cohesive or wisely integrated. 6. As I stated on record, the current FLUM is a deal breaker for me. I will be happy to expound with multiple examples of concerns I have with the FLUM and the process. 7. A specific area plan for Eagle Crossing and surrounding areas (Eagle and Overland) shown in the Staff presentations as Bubble Diagram 3 was not done through the Steering Committee. I object to the location and inclusion of a single-family traditional neighborhood as shown on Bubble Diagram 3. Having this use in a heavy commercial area and next to the freeway isn't a thoughtful future plan. The apartments should be moved over next to canal so a nice pathway and green space can be developed. The purple or blue color depending on printer should be commercial employment only. The apartments west of the Rolling Hills should have a designation for mixed-use buildings that contain parking, retail office and condos/apartments. The office/apartment use should be eliminated and be shown as apartments. The pathway needs to be extended to the lateral and contain underpasses to avoid commercial traffic. The road parallel to the creek needs to better be identified in the plan. This mixed-use plan is missing any a civic or park uses. The greenbelt/pathway isn’t good enough to support this develop nor gives open space or gather placing for workers and the apartments. Having this as part of the Staff presentation and NOT go through the Steering Committee be the only area specific plan gives the impression that the Staff is working with developers to provide a framework of needed uses to expedite their desire to develop the area and maybe viewed as preferential treatment. The bottom-line is this: If approved as submitted, I would like my name removed from the new Comprehensive Plan. From my perspective this document as presented, and without the needed recommended changes to UDC, isn’t in the best interest of our existing or future residents. However, this still could be a WIN-WIN: 1.Place hashmarks on the Fields, Magic Bridge, Southwest and Southern Rim. Revisit the Bubble Diagram for Eagle Crossing and surrounding area. Place a hold on developments until specific area plans can be developed. The exception would be lands within the area that is already zoned and building permits are in process. Work on a very aggressive timetable. 2.Direct staff to set up committees now for Open Space and Amenities, Transitions and Buffers, and Elevation and Dimension standards for district areas. In 2005, it was noted that 2 and ½ years after the 2002 Comp Plan approval, the needed UDC changes for the Comprehensive Plan had not been completed. Directing that these committees be expedited and launched in December would ensure good faith among our residents toward the implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan. 3.Delay the final approval vote until the new City Council in sworn in. It would be beneficial to re-examine our Mixed Use designation to place commercial and high density in specific areas to ensure the proper elements that are needed to make this land use successful. For example: Commercial areas that would allow for backage and/or frontage roads with access to a right hand turning light. High-density apartments located by future employment centers and transit areas. Locate apartments in downtown, next to the college and next to Eagle Crossing. 3 I sincerely hope that you will honor the residents and their request for quality, thoughtful development. The impact of the decision you make will impact generations to come. After an 18-month process, let’s invest another month or two of thoughtful deliberation to refine and perfect this plan. Sincerely, Denise LaFever 6706 N Salvia Way Meridian, ID 83646 4 Future Land Use Map Designation Area Low Density Residential 9,926 Medium Density Residential 15,165 1 Med-High Density Residential 670 High Density Residential 573 Commercial 1,548 Office 343 General Industrial 1,047 Civic 1,503 Old Town 336 Mixed Use -Neighborhood 1,014 Mixed Use - Community 1,475 Mixed Use - Non Residential 499 Mixed Use - Regional 1,553 Mixed Use - Interchange 270 Low Density Employment * 97 High Density Employment * 75 Mixed Employment * 520 Mixed Use - Residential * 68 Mixed Use - Commercial * 194 Rural/Estate Residential 1,967 Park * 34 Lifestyle Center * 73 Pipeline Easement * 9 Civic Ten Mile 91 8,014 6,889 • Informed by market and 902 transportation analysis. 662 1,610 • Aggregated totals = a well-balanced 314 and healthy future 1,336 1,638 • These areas are all important, even if 336 some aren't perceived as the 1,007 1,954 "highest and best" 369 1,566 294 97 '+ ` Z a- 77 77 518 68 251 - E IDIAN Future Land Use Map Changes 1. AOCI Removal (mostly Rural / Estate Residential designation) 1,155 2. Cleanup Changes 509 3. Consolidation of Designation Types 55 4. General Change (staff initiated and by property owner request) 5,758 5 Neighborhood Center (N.C.) Overlay removed (but no change to underlying Mixed Use designation) 384 6. No Change 31,196 Future Land Use Area (Adopted) 39,058 Note: Actual proposed AOCI is 37,903 acres. Areas with applied FLUM designations is less. lfc� mov 2 C��fENty r Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility Area C fl A hit P+Jl9rs.mMdW—RYa9fa.. T Voc na,t �o. fS Nv, q we 9 Co.V gUn COW W01MVno -DRAFT- Future Lan... { ley-/ �— ,2 .9- o E IDIAN �-- Bubble Diagram 3 Legend Intessecttons ♦ full Access IL limited Act:ess 0 Signal 0 Future Sig, iul Flood Mop Floodway 100 Year F600d 500 Year Fbod 04her nor, symeob %U Pathway 1 Gteenbeit Exut ?g / Proposed Ste viannisseEjOIVERL-ANDeR i a 0 as llrpo, P" Dade: 3121120 � 7 User: Omcclure Commercial / Employment Commercial / Employment 0 500 1.000 2.000 Peet 0 Th. iworrrrofon Yawn O M -OP 5 cc rvdea Uo w>no rt ono Y swper ro Cwam+ arson. The CM or Mardon '- maim no w vy of pram+.. m No ss cmurn. o Co -Y. wnobww. or C+WVWtaww d aq d +» WOO POVK*dono i n.rmsS no W"" rNpon "N ra m. •atx+Vrron cmrorroa Commercial / Employment Com, I I I Cammercial Apartments If w UJI U t7 N �`��ersto�� 0 % J I S P Vila, W 44% jl)� (�>E IDIAN e a-- n��s �O V- Magic Bridge Area"b-e� S Adopted P&Z Commission Recommendation . k-�n k E IDIAN— . 0-1ko Sl 2G S P 1• . Rustler Place Area Adopted Future Land Uses P&Z Commission Recommendation Lolr netnitp Rcsid Jttial Llnr Den.lity Rcsid •ntiftl WVICTORY-RO W IETORY-R L(IM, Lf/1V f)l•JlAfty' l)rn.�it{• :Hediunt Residential llediutu Rrsiflent-ill Dem t} hen.uft Residential r Residential S9 o o i 6U r 4C 6w Z �e tWIN� VIEWt% MU -,4' tlediuflt ,il ��{" W< M� M►IFi,- ' Z llydrtem G4 Dea%iq, t1 VIE .y('-. ,;, /)rnsil� Lair 1)tnsity Residential sidendal Residential ,4. nensio, Af);411ITY-R W -AMITY -RD D E IDIAN �- �64 CA"5e- �c�o �'; � •� rte- -� (�� e� C.�4, Fields Area xc C-4 Adopted Future Land Uses P&Z Commission Recommendation WrCHINU�/��tIVD Gee , WrGHINDENiBIbD MV -RG _ .._hNrrclura�e Low mired � Ihnsiryy - nterrhen,�r- � Residential P tu.�li�C7 . • ; (Pe -HIledianrnsit) I ,rt 1)en.lt} Jewirrl �idrntirr! Rrsidential I .gym ry I ii[t'•h1�CM1lLAfl RD—'LAN-RD � o I)enxitj• - a - q Residend al ;ewe a - • 2 ndtrctriul 2 ' C�r`iit• r� Lore I)ensit)• Residenliul :Mixed I'.�eu 1<Iired C...� hrterrhranKc_ a P H errhan WWSTICKtRDOM=Z sIuty W+USTICKtRD�ir .i--�-•—.- _ j,, f C' lam"- S 1 i CQ - 4 i� � CJS-� 1+ C� CVE IDIAN C'. `,...�: 'ri .� � �1 r1� � +r► •''"erg ♦ i cZ Qq_ p Y C �o ✓ —�'l�e�c4 S Fostering a City Known for It's Quality of Life Southwest Area & Rural / Estate Adopted Future Land Uses P&Z Commission Recommendation (highlighted areas) Citywide Rural Esta,.e Res,denna E711 C "C Low Density Resident as Old Town /,tedium Denaty Resdeni al Mixoa Uw Nagnoornood 1q Ct �� • �" Citywide Low OPensuy ResKdenlial cmc -- ... .. M"urn Density ResWenfW OW Town r�L ',ZD '�DIAN U�� L.P . a-�> cc- P C�-�. 47 4 t /v —& A-(-,:) Pr -e -pa --v -.e-- c— c � C Future Land Use Map Changes Q -DRAFT- Future Land Use Map x + — 0 X C Q https://gis.meridiancity.or... {t 0 UDC VS ® Planning Map IQ Comp Plan » Other bookmarks MeIVICTM Low Density Employment N h W PEAK W PEAK CLOUD DR �OUD DR G V BALANCE ROCK DR uu 1: LL uY ;A Med-HI h Density Residential 2MU-1 Q-DRAFT- Future Land Use Map x + — LI X - C Q O https://gis.meridiancity.or... 0 : �• UDC V Searchable ® Planning Map Q Comp Plan » Other bookmarks RANKLIN•RD N � Y W PEAK W PEAK CLOUD DR CLOUD DR r �O sG W BALANCE ROCK DR A r U CVIEI� cb 'AV--� y� DIAN y sr n � h S;ru � �t �•-r/�. I��cc.� �-('�- �T c��c�u.Q Southern Rim Area Adopted Future Land Uses ' :{Iev!•Hi,�hN i�nsit►• �'r+++rnre •xu I �-� ' -� TReA*denfidl videnfipI_.C++�i11C' Rl: 1)ensiv a Park Ire e 11 -`, W E`VICT0RY•RD­131L e- Z //igh c Density Reside•nthd W 7 N D sir►'.,, VI W Reside fiul. � —&Uui ATii11TY'RD an PAMITY`RD ` 4 'R le,a1l�nsirti H - • Resh I 'al Rural WI AKEM EBRD E LAKE•HAIEL•RID G • �`°�: � C►ivir < Ved-' i A )en stq . � R .rirlentr r ■ P&Z Commission Recommendation (highlighted areas) I)eitsih, Lpµ' sin' Reside1 w/ 31 V O Z A =+ \O°, .1kiliutn 1)e+iv1v LAM Vice It' j3fV-RG � E',VICTORY•RD er e W 1 E'L•AKEIV& Low Density' Residential 1 W .11ed-High E IDIAN �- 1� \ ok- 0_ Qk VVN_ <' CA - �� Chris Johnson From:Denise LaFever <dlafever3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 25, 2019 9:19 PM To:mayortammy; Anne Little Roberts; Joe Borton; Ty Palmer; Treg Bernt; Genesis Milam; Luke Cavener Cc:Chris Johnson Subject:RE: New Comprehensive Plan H-2019-0101 CPAM, CPAT Dear Mayor and Council Members, I stand corrected on the below. The FLUM document that went to P&Z shows Mixed Use for the below item. This is what was discussed and works. 3. The developer of the property located north of I-84 and west of Meridian Road come before City Council requesting a comprehensive map change. The developer wanted to build houses and apartments. The neighbors came out to testify and were concerned about the impact of the change especially when it came to the road. This property is currently zoned with concept plan that shows a hotel. The New Comprehensive Plan shows this as MDR. Changing from Commercial to all residential instead of Mixed Use, is this the right answer? This property has high visibility to I-84 and Meridian Road. It has stated before that due to the noise residential along I-84 is not to most desirable. I’m open to further discussions on the below e-mail. Thanks, Denise LaFever 6706 N Salvia Way Meridian, ID 83464 From: Denise LaFever <dlafever3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 6:48 PM To: mayortammy@meridiancity.org; alittleroberts@meridiancity.org; jborton@meridiancity.org; typalmer@meridiancity.org; tbernt@meridiancity.org; gmilam@meridiancity.org; lcavener@meridiancity.org Cc: 'Chris Johnson' <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: New Comprehensive Plan H-2019-0101 CPAM, CPAT Dear Mayor and Council Members, As you are aware, I have attended many public meetings over the past three years. I have observed Planning & Zoning meetings for months on end, as Treg has observed. I have attended numerous City Council meetings, during which I have observed, proposed Future Meeting Topics, and testified for or against many 1 applications. I have had the opportunity to speak in depth with the Development staff and gain a tremendous amount of knowledge and insight. Cameron, Caleb, Brian, Bill and Joshua have been very nice and helpful. I was ecstatic and honored to be selected to represent the residents of Meridian on the Steering Committee. I took this job very seriously and attended all the meetings, attended numerous public outreach meetings that promoted participation in the New Comprehensive Plan, and listened to the public’s concerns: Infrastructure, Schools, Open Space/Parks and the Closeness of the houses/crowding topped the list. I attended all the initial neighborhood outreach meetings for the Fields, Magic Bridge, Southern Rim/ Southwest areas. I wanted to understand what the existing landowners’ concerns were. At my own expense I attended an Urban Land Institute meeting recommended by Cameron. The topic of the meeting was placemaking - the importance of open/gathering space, identity, and uniqueness to build a sustainable and viable place. My big take away was stated by Urban Land Institute’s Ed McMahon, “Every community in America needs a long-rang green space plan or conservation plan … just like you need a transportation plan.” I attended one of the summer outreach events to see what the public was being shown and told. I took my assignment extremely seriously and provided comments as requested. I spoke up and participated in all the meetings. I served on the Economic Development Subcommittee and was Susan Karnes’ backup for the Housing Subcommittee. I spoke to Bruce, the consultant, and even asked him to provide a drawing of what the “Fields” could look like with a specific area plan. The changes that have been included in the Staff plan have deviated from what was shown and discussed at the Steering Committee, so I’m attaching my review notes with my thoughts, recommendations and concerns as a Steering Committee. What I’m about to request of you was first brought up at the Steering Committee. For months, I have been deeply conflicted and deeply concerned over the development, processes and timing for adoption of this New Comprehensive Plan. Sally Reynolds resigned from the Steering Committee over similar concerns. For me to support this plan, and have my name attached as a steering committee member, I must know that it meets my personal moral compass standards--and for me, that means I have to be able to answer these questions and feel good about the answers: Who are the Stakeholders? Is this plan truly stakeholder-driven? Is this the right thing to do? Is the timing right? Is it being done for the right motivations? Is it FAIR to all concerned? Will this build a better community and be sustainable for the future? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? A couple of things have happened during the eighteen months of the Plan that give me great concerns: 2 1. The Steering Committee made the recommendation to the Staff to speak to the neighbors located next to the development on Eagle and Overland (Rolling Hill Subdivision, Jewel Subdivision & RUT). Caleb went before City Council and the Mayor at a workshop meeting in which the public is unable to testify, and proceeded to request that the City Council change the request made by the Steering Committee to not speak with the neighbors. At a City Council meeting soon after, the developer of Eagle Crossing requested a change that required City Council approval and one of the neighbors from the above-mentioned neighborhoods testified on record that Brighton was making offers to his neighbors to purchase their properties. Looking at the events in retrospect, the optics are troubling: It creates the perception that Staff worked with the Developer, knowingly or not, to circumvent conversations with the neighbors that could have potentially impacted the future value of their properties. This was brought up at a Steering Committee meeting, and it was recommended that Mixed Use be assigned to these properties and a specific area plan be made so the access wasn’t an issue and would assist in developing a cohesive area. I’m deeply concerned by what happened and the practice of using LDR as a placeholder that potentially suppresses future property values. 2. At one of the last steering committee meetings a request was brought forward by Staff to have a future land use changed to Industrial. When asked for the reason, the answer was that the landowner wanted to develop the property sooner than later. 3. The developer of the property located north of I-84 and west of Meridian Road come before City Council requesting a comprehensive map change. The developer wanted to build houses and apartments. The neighbors came out to testify and were concerned about the impact of the change especially when it came to the road. This property is currently zoned with concept plan that shows a hotel. The New Comprehensive Plan shows this as MDR. Changing from Commercial to all residential instead of Mixed Use, is this the right answer? This property has high visibility to I-84 and Meridian Road. It has stated before that due to the noise residential along I-84 is not to most desirable. 4. The Hash Design representative at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting was yet another example of a inconsistent process, in which the Staff informed a developer to put in his land use request, so it could be included in the Plan—but neighborhoods were forced to organize in a last minute effort to be heard, and of course the request was never considered by our steering committee. 5. I am concerned this “Comprehensive” Plan is a “Partial Plan,” because we neglected a critical piece of Meridian’s future: a vibrant downtown. Requests by the Steering Committee to revisit the Downtown plan were denied. The downtown is vital to Meridian’s identity, but this wasn’t part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. I do not have confidence, therefore, that this Plan is cohesive or wisely integrated. 6. As I stated on record, the current FLUM is a deal breaker for me. I will be happy to expound with multiple examples of concerns I have with the FLUM and the process. 7. A specific area plan for Eagle Crossing and surrounding areas (Eagle and Overland) shown in the Staff presentations as Bubble Diagram 3 was not done through the Steering Committee. I object to the location and inclusion of a single-family traditional neighborhood as shown on Bubble Diagram 3. Having this use in a heavy commercial area and next to the freeway isn't a thoughtful future plan. The apartments should be moved over next to canal so a nice pathway and green space can be developed. The purple or blue color depending on printer should be commercial employment only. The apartments west of the Rolling Hills should have a designation for mixed-use buildings that contain parking, retail office and condos/apartments. The office/apartment use should be eliminated and be shown as apartments. The pathway needs to be extended to the lateral and contain underpasses to avoid commercial traffic. The road 3 parallel to the creek needs to better be identified in the plan. This mixed-use plan is missing any a civic or park uses. The greenbelt/pathway isn’t good enough to support this develop nor gives open space or gather placing for workers and the apartments. Having this as part of the Staff presentation and NOT go through the Steering Committee be the only area specific plan gives the impression that the Staff is working with developers to provide a framework of needed uses to expedite their desire to develop the area and maybe viewed as preferential treatment. The bottom-line is this: If approved as submitted, I would like my name removed from the new Comprehensive Plan. From my perspective this document as presented, and without the needed recommended changes to UDC, isn’t in the best interest of our existing or future residents. However, this still could be a WIN-WIN: 1.Place hashmarks on the Fields, Magic Bridge, Southwest and Southern Rim. Revisit the Bubble Diagram for Eagle Crossing and surrounding area. Place a hold on developments until specific area plans can be developed. The exception would be lands within the area that is already zoned and building permits are in process. Work on a very aggressive timetable. 2.Direct staff to set up committees now for Open Space and Amenities, Transitions and Buffers, and Elevation and Dimension standards for district areas. In 2005, it was noted that 2 and ½ years after the 2002 Comp Plan approval, the needed UDC changes for the Comprehensive Plan had not been completed. Directing that these committees be expedited and launched in December would ensure good faith among our residents toward the implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan. 3.Delay the final approval vote until the new City Council in sworn in. It would be beneficial to re-examine our Mixed Use designation to place commercial and high density in specific areas to ensure the proper elements that are needed to make this land use successful. For example: Commercial areas that would allow for backage and/or frontage roads with access to a right hand turning light. High-density apartments located by future employment centers and transit areas. Locate apartments in downtown, next to the college and next to Eagle Crossing. I sincerely hope that you will honor the residents and their request for quality, thoughtful development. The impact of the decision you make will impact generations to come. After an 18-month process, let’s invest another month or two of thoughtful deliberation to refine and perfect this plan. Sincerely, Denise LaFever 6706 N Salvia Way Meridian, ID 83646 4 Chris Johnson From:Denise LaFever <dlafever3@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 26, 2019 7:14 AM To:mayortammy; Anne Little Roberts; Joe Borton; Ty Palmer; Treg Bernt; Genesis Milam; Luke Cavener Cc:Chris Johnson Subject:RE: New Comprehensive Plan H-2019-0101 CPAM, CPAT Dear Mayor and Council Members, See DevCo’s letter expressing concerns over changes not ran through the Steering Committee. It is time to hit the pause button and sent this Plan back to the Steering Committee, so all changes can be properly vetted. At the same time get the committees together for needed UDC changes that should accompany this Comprehensive Plan. DevCo letter name and link on public records: 2019-11-25 DevCo 11.22.2019 I also want to express the “sample zoning” as it was put by Jim Conger that was added to the Comprehensive Plan I’m in fully support of having this in the Comprehensive Plan. Adding this language to the Comprehensive Plan eliminates confusion and allows the land use cut sheets to have meaning. For the public and the outside investor it gives a tie to the land uses and recommended zoning for the area. Once again, I do agree with Jim Conger that changes should be vetted by the Steering Committee and I highly recommend sending the entire Comprehensive Plan back for a final review and revisions. Thanks, Denise LaFever 6706 N Salvia Way Meridian, ID 83646 From: Denise LaFever <dlafever3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 9:19 PM To: mayortammy@meridiancity.org; alittleroberts@meridiancity.org; jborton@meridiancity.org; typalmer@meridiancity.org; tbernt@meridiancity.org; gmilam@meridiancity.org; lcavener@meridiancity.org Cc: 'Chris Johnson' <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: New Comprehensive Plan H-2019-0101 CPAM, CPAT Dear Mayor and Council Members, I stand corrected on the below. The FLUM document that went to P&Z shows Mixed Use for the below item. This is what was discussed and works. 3. The developer of the property located north of I-84 and west of Meridian Road come before City Council requesting a comprehensive map change. The developer wanted to build houses and apartments. The neighbors came out to testify and were concerned about the impact of the change especially when it came to the road. This property is currently zoned with concept plan that shows a hotel. The New Comprehensive Plan shows this as MDR. Changing from Commercial to all residential instead of Mixed Use, is this the right 1 answer? This property has high visibility to I-84 and Meridian Road. It has stated before that due to the noise residential along I-84 is not to most desirable. I’m open to further discussions on the below e-mail. Thanks, Denise LaFever 6706 N Salvia Way Meridian, ID 83464 From: Denise LaFever <dlafever3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 6:48 PM To: mayortammy@meridiancity.org; alittleroberts@meridiancity.org; jborton@meridiancity.org; typalmer@meridiancity.org; tbernt@meridiancity.org; gmilam@meridiancity.org; lcavener@meridiancity.org Cc: 'Chris Johnson' <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: New Comprehensive Plan H-2019-0101 CPAM, CPAT Dear Mayor and Council Members, As you are aware, I have attended many public meetings over the past three years. I have observed Planning & Zoning meetings for months on end, as Treg has observed. I have attended numerous City Council meetings, during which I have observed, proposed Future Meeting Topics, and testified for or against many applications. I have had the opportunity to speak in depth with the Development staff and gain a tremendous amount of knowledge and insight. Cameron, Caleb, Brian, Bill and Joshua have been very nice and helpful. I was ecstatic and honored to be selected to represent the residents of Meridian on the Steering Committee. I took this job very seriously and attended all the meetings, attended numerous public outreach meetings that promoted participation in the New Comprehensive Plan, and listened to the public’s concerns: Infrastructure, Schools, Open Space/Parks and the Closeness of the houses/crowding topped the list. I attended all the initial neighborhood outreach meetings for the Fields, Magic Bridge, Southern Rim/ Southwest areas. I wanted to understand what the existing landowners’ concerns were. At my own expense I attended an Urban Land Institute meeting recommended by Cameron. The topic of the meeting was placemaking - the importance of open/gathering space, identity, and uniqueness to build a sustainable and viable place. My big take away was stated by Urban Land Institute’s Ed McMahon, “Every community in America needs a long-rang green space plan or conservation plan … just like you need a transportation plan.” I attended one of the summer outreach events to see what the public was being shown and told. I took my assignment extremely seriously and provided comments as requested. I spoke up and participated in all the meetings. I served on the Economic Development Subcommittee and was Susan Karnes’ backup for the Housing Subcommittee. I spoke to Bruce, the consultant, and even asked him to provide a drawing of what the “Fields” could look like with a specific area plan. 2 The changes that have been included in the Staff plan have deviated from what was shown and discussed at the Steering Committee, so I’m attaching my review notes with my thoughts, recommendations and concerns as a Steering Committee. What I’m about to request of you was first brought up at the Steering Committee. For months, I have been deeply conflicted and deeply concerned over the development, processes and timing for adoption of this New Comprehensive Plan. Sally Reynolds resigned from the Steering Committee over similar concerns. For me to support this plan, and have my name attached as a steering committee member, I must know that it meets my personal moral compass standards--and for me, that means I have to be able to answer these questions and feel good about the answers: Who are the Stakeholders? Is this plan truly stakeholder-driven? Is this the right thing to do? Is the timing right? Is it being done for the right motivations? Is it FAIR to all concerned? Will this build a better community and be sustainable for the future? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? A couple of things have happened during the eighteen months of the Plan that give me great concerns: 1. The Steering Committee made the recommendation to the Staff to speak to the neighbors located next to the development on Eagle and Overland (Rolling Hill Subdivision, Jewel Subdivision & RUT). Caleb went before City Council and the Mayor at a workshop meeting in which the public is unable to testify, and proceeded to request that the City Council change the request made by the Steering Committee to not speak with the neighbors. At a City Council meeting soon after, the developer of Eagle Crossing requested a change that required City Council approval and one of the neighbors from the above-mentioned neighborhoods testified on record that Brighton was making offers to his neighbors to purchase their properties. Looking at the events in retrospect, the optics are troubling: It creates the perception that Staff worked with the Developer, knowingly or not, to circumvent conversations with the neighbors that could have potentially impacted the future value of their properties. This was brought up at a Steering Committee meeting, and it was recommended that Mixed Use be assigned to these properties and a specific area plan be made so the access wasn’t an issue and would assist in developing a cohesive area. I’m deeply concerned by what happened and the practice of using LDR as a placeholder that potentially suppresses future property values. 2. At one of the last steering committee meetings a request was brought forward by Staff to have a future land use changed to Industrial. When asked for the reason, the answer was that the landowner wanted to develop the property sooner than later. 3. The developer of the property located north of I-84 and west of Meridian Road come before City Council requesting a comprehensive map change. The developer wanted to build houses and apartments. The 3 neighbors came out to testify and were concerned about the impact of the change especially when it came to the road. This property is currently zoned with concept plan that shows a hotel. The New Comprehensive Plan shows this as MDR. Changing from Commercial to all residential instead of Mixed Use, is this the right answer? This property has high visibility to I-84 and Meridian Road. It has stated before that due to the noise residential along I-84 is not to most desirable. 4. The Hash Design representative at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting was yet another example of a inconsistent process, in which the Staff informed a developer to put in his land use request, so it could be included in the Plan—but neighborhoods were forced to organize in a last minute effort to be heard, and of course the request was never considered by our steering committee. 5. I am concerned this “Comprehensive” Plan is a “Partial Plan,” because we neglected a critical piece of Meridian’s future: a vibrant downtown. Requests by the Steering Committee to revisit the Downtown plan were denied. The downtown is vital to Meridian’s identity, but this wasn’t part of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. I do not have confidence, therefore, that this Plan is cohesive or wisely integrated. 6. As I stated on record, the current FLUM is a deal breaker for me. I will be happy to expound with multiple examples of concerns I have with the FLUM and the process. 7. A specific area plan for Eagle Crossing and surrounding areas (Eagle and Overland) shown in the Staff presentations as Bubble Diagram 3 was not done through the Steering Committee. I object to the location and inclusion of a single-family traditional neighborhood as shown on Bubble Diagram 3. Having this use in a heavy commercial area and next to the freeway isn't a thoughtful future plan. The apartments should be moved over next to canal so a nice pathway and green space can be developed. The purple or blue color depending on printer should be commercial employment only. The apartments west of the Rolling Hills should have a designation for mixed-use buildings that contain parking, retail office and condos/apartments. The office/apartment use should be eliminated and be shown as apartments. The pathway needs to be extended to the lateral and contain underpasses to avoid commercial traffic. The road parallel to the creek needs to better be identified in the plan. This mixed-use plan is missing any a civic or park uses. The greenbelt/pathway isn’t good enough to support this develop nor gives open space or gather placing for workers and the apartments. Having this as part of the Staff presentation and NOT go through the Steering Committee be the only area specific plan gives the impression that the Staff is working with developers to provide a framework of needed uses to expedite their desire to develop the area and maybe viewed as preferential treatment. The bottom-line is this: If approved as submitted, I would like my name removed from the new Comprehensive Plan. From my perspective this document as presented, and without the needed recommended changes to UDC, isn’t in the best interest of our existing or future residents. However, this still could be a WIN-WIN: 1.Place hashmarks on the Fields, Magic Bridge, Southwest and Southern Rim. Revisit the Bubble Diagram for Eagle Crossing and surrounding area. Place a hold on developments until specific area plans can be developed. The exception would be lands within the area that is already zoned and building permits are in process. Work on a very aggressive timetable. 2.Direct staff to set up committees now for Open Space and Amenities, Transitions and Buffers, and Elevation and Dimension standards for district areas. In 2005, it was noted that 2 and ½ years after the 2002 Comp Plan approval, the needed UDC changes for the Comprehensive Plan had not been 4 completed. Directing that these committees be expedited and launched in December would ensure good faith among our residents toward the implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan. 3.Delay the final approval vote until the new City Council in sworn in. It would be beneficial to re-examine our Mixed Use designation to place commercial and high density in specific areas to ensure the proper elements that are needed to make this land use successful. For example: Commercial areas that would allow for backage and/or frontage roads with access to a right hand turning light. High-density apartments located by future employment centers and transit areas. Locate apartments in downtown, next to the college and next to Eagle Crossing. I sincerely hope that you will honor the residents and their request for quality, thoughtful development. The impact of the decision you make will impact generations to come. After an 18-month process, let’s invest another month or two of thoughtful deliberation to refine and perfect this plan. Sincerely, Denise LaFever 6706 N Salvia Way Meridian, ID 83646 5